According to [WTC designer Leslie Robertson], New York City has some of the
worst wind loads in the nation ... This is because of the occasional wind
generated off of the Atlantic Ocean during hurricane season. As a result,
buildings in New York City must be designed to be twice as strong as similar
buildings designed to withstand an earthquake in Los Angeles. [NYC24]

If the above is true then why is it claimed the twin towers were bolted together with non-composite (weak)
steel deck trusses? There would be no strength in the structure.

To illustrate the point lets take a close
look at two fundamental parts of the official 'truss theory', namely the trusses and bolts...

The WTC trusses (shown above) spanned 60'
and 35' between the inner core and perimeter walls.

Here is a floor plan showing the layout of trusses
used in the twin towers construction:

A small piece of the plan has been highlighted in red. This is where a truss
is attached to the inner core. Details of the inner core:

The core was designed to support the entire weight of the buildings several times over. Far more than a
mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar
to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns
were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was
anchored directly to the bedrock.

Photograph showing WTC 1 inner core during construction:

The inner core of WTC 1 was the most solid part of the building.

According to the WTC Report the
only thing securing trusses to the inner core and perimeter walls were 5/8" bolts:

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and these permanently stressed bolts would
be a very weak link - they'd had 30 years of wear and corrosion - but if the 'truss theory' is to be believed
then they were the only things holding the twin towers together.

On 9/11 Flight 11 plowed into WTC 1 at 470
mph, the inner core of the building bore the brunt of the 150+ ton airliner's impact.

If the 'truss theory'
were true then the force of the plane's impact would have knocked the inner core backwards, this would have
crushed numerous trusses on the opposite side of the building and sheared off a massive number of truss
connecting bolts.

Cary Sheih on the 72nd floor of WTC 1 when Flight 11 hit the building:

'I heard a loud explosion, which was immediately followed by tremendous building sways and vibrations.
As I was thrown out of my chair, I immediately thought that this was an earthquake, but still thinking
rationally, I thought that it was abnormal since there are no earthquakes in NYC, especially of this
magnitude. I remember thinking that the building felt like it was going to collapse from this initial
explosion.' [TruthOrFiction]

WTC 1 shook and swayed so violently that it threw Cary Sheih from his chair, but it remained standing.
This is incredible, especially when you consider the following collapse study:

Weak single bolts 'contributed to WTC collapse'

The
single-bolt connections in the framework of the World Trade Center popped and fell apart during the September
11 terrorist attacks, causing the floors to collapse on top of each other, according to a new study. The
analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concludes
the bolts did not properly secure the towers' steel floor trusses, The New York Post reported yesterday. [CBS News]

If the building was truly held together by weak bolts then the single bolt connections should have
"popped and fell apart" when Flight 11 smashed into the inner core of WTC 1, not 1½ hours after the event.

The following photo shows Flight 11's impact area in WTC 1.

A closer look shows straight edges where the trusses held the
perimeter wall rigid.

If the trusses were weak the entire area of the perimeter wall where the plane
hit would have bent inwards as trusses were crushed upon impact.
You would not see a plane shaped hole in an otherwise flat wall.

The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load,
rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail
that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of
2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t. [tms.org]

Below is an unscaled schematic of the proposed WTC trusses and their
attachment to columns.

The WTC buildings could sway up to 3 feet in any direction in a
strong wind. It is implausible to suggest the above design could effectively
transfer 5,000 t of lateral load to the core. The photo of the coal mine dredge
on this page gives you an example of 5,000 t. Trusses would be crushed and
bolts sheared off.

The only way WTC 1 could have withstood the wind load and survived Flight 11's impact is if the building was solidly constructed.
The following from the BBC shows a far more solid structure and reveals how
loading was transferred from the perimeter walls to the core.

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and
stairwells.

All the steel was covered in concrete to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two
hours in which they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to higher-than-normal
temperatures.

Proof of the buildings' solid structure lies in the fact they stood for thirty years
in winds which sometimes reached hurricane force. Would ¼ mile high buildings which relied solely on the
integrity of weak trusses and 5/8" bolts have stood for thirty years?

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was
the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet
liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the
plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

On the one hand we are being told that the steel of the trusses
was weakened by the heat of fires, and on the other hand we are being told that
this weakened steel was strong enough to pull the perimeter walls inwards until
the structure failed.

This is self-contradicting nonsense.

Also, the 5/8" bolts would have failed long before the
perimeter walls.

To illustrate this point the left figure below shows a perimeter
wall column section from the upper part of the towers, where the steel was
thinnest, and the right figure shows a section from a column in the lower part of
the towers, where
the steel was much thicker.

The following image gives an idea of the scale of the perimeter
wall in comparison to a 5/8" bolt.

When Flight 11 flew into WTC 1, one of
two things should have happened:

If the building had nothing more than steel trusses bolted between the inner core and
perimeter walls there should have been an immediate "pancake collapse" of all floors
(but the core should have remained intact).

If the building was solidly constructed it should have remained standing.